(03-30-2022 12:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 12:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 11:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 11:05 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Your argument boils down to conflating "conflict of interest" and "potential conflict of interest".

No issue there with that summary.

At least I can admit that a conflict of interest is not out of the question, and don't have to resort to arguing that one side is trying to tell women to get back in the kitchen...

You aren't arguing for his recusal, just defending those that are, because you feel like you have to.

If you want to look at it that way, that’s your prerogative.

I’m pushing back on the claims by you, and others, that there clearly is NO conflict of interest present, based on the information at hand. I’m also pushing back on what I believe is incorrect rationale behind the potential conflict of interest - the conflict of interest doesn’t stem from Ginni’s beliefs, but rather her communications with Meadows and her potential impact or role in the administration’s actions.

Conflict of interest has a legal definition. It's not a vague notion.

"...doesn’t stem from Ginni’s beliefs..." is only believable if you believe in unicorns, fairies, and that the calls for Thomas' recusal aren't politically motivated.

Seriously? Have you not read about the text messages that have come to light between her and Meadows?

And not sure what the comment about the legal definition refers to - I'm not sure where you think I suggested there was a vague notion. This situation clearly creates a potential conflict of interest. The question is whether the potential conflict of interest is enough for recusal to be appropriate.